Judge to Justin Clark in Trump/NARA hearing: "isn't the person who is best able and in a position to determine the executive privilege the executive?"
Clark: "I don't agree with that."
This isn't going well for him so far.
Clark: "I don't agree with that."
This isn't going well for him so far.
"The separation of powers issue...I find hard to discern here because in a rare instance, the executive branch and the legislative branch are in agreement," the judge says.
"I don't see why the separation of powers argument that you are talking about exists," she adds.
The judge seems very skeptical of Clark's argument that releasing documents to Congress would cause Trump irreparable harm.
"We're not talking about commercial proprietary information because all relating to matters before your client became President. we're talking about documents that are quintessentially about government business, are we not?"
Judge: "How is your client harmed by the release of White House visitor logs?"
Clark can't really say.
Judge asks again: "Tell me how your client is harmed by the release of White House visitor logs".
Clark can't really say.
Judge asks again: "Tell me how your client is harmed by the release of White House visitor logs".
Clark: I can't articulate a specific harm without seeing the specific documents.
Clark now arguing that allowing the documents to be released would open the door for partisan document releases.
Shapiro (arguing for NARA) says the case is indeed a first impression case, but says court has weighed privilege claims before.
She says Nixon v GSA (frequently cited by Clark) assigns "greatest weight" to the incumbent president's decisions.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
